Is there any better argument against intelligent design that the human mouth/teeth?

Originally posted by Qumulys
Well, the evidence is that we are continually evolving, those who claim otherwise seem to wear blinkers. Anyways, I think we will eventually lose wisdom teeth altogether.

edit - Source

Anthropologists believe wisdom teeth, or the third set of molars, were the evolutionary answer to our ancestor’s early diet of coarse, rough food – like leaves, roots, nuts and meats – which required more chewing power and resulted in excessive wear of the teeth. The modern diet with its softer foods, along with marvels of modern technologies such as forks, spoons and knives, has made the need for wisdom teeth nonexistent. As a result, evolutionary biologists now classify wisdom teeth as vestigial organs, or body parts that have become functionless due to evolution.

edit on 22-2-2013 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2013 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

or you might say "adapting"

if you step back, and ask questions "why would the creator create the human mouth", you are asking this from the standpoint that there is a creator

Now step back further and understand how futile it is to try and understand why a "creator" would do a particular thing- a creator, who has created the universe, the planets, the stars, the humans, the animals etc etc

Like an ant questioning a laptop

Not to say I am anti science, and science provides us with so many benefits, I just never found it "RATIONAL" to try and understand the actions of a creator

reply to post by Credenceskynyrd


As I said earlier...There is NO CONFLICT between ones belief in a GOD and the reality of Evolution.

As far as not questioning a Creator...it is not as simple as this as every Biological aspect of every single living thing has a purpose and those that do not...such as a Human Apendix....is slowly through Evolution being removed from the species.

Split Infinity

As a dental student I approve of this thread. Its not just about wisdom teeth, phylogenetic crowding of teeth is behind many orthodontic issues. Similar logic applies to human body in general, it is a fascinating machine in most areas, but it also has many dumb mistakes that force us to doubt the intelligence of the supposed designer. And thats the hallmark of evolution.

Isn't the premise predicating on the Intelligent Designer caring about our human teeth? Maybe this Creator favours sharks more Why does 'God' have to always have our best interests in mind? Perhaps us having faulty teeth was intentional for whatever divine reason that may be. Imperfection a planned component of its perfection? *shrug*

Unless of course you meant Creationism in the strict religious sense? In which case humans are clearly elevated to such grandeur. That being the case maybe Biblical god keeps effing up the design for our teeth because he's too busy listening to billions of people pray about their dinner every day. Or maybe he gave us lame teeth because he's a jerk.

Although I don't believe in prayer, God if you are listening I would prefer more shark teeth and less root canals

Or God made the Universe and let evolution do its thang by its own biological volition. In which case intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

it seems likely to me that both evolution and creationism are responsible.
the creation verses in the opening chapter of genesis are talking about the
universe being created and then, at some indeterminate time later, the earth
recovering from a cataclysm, which is called "tohu" in the verse, and this sets
the scene for a re-terraforming of the planet and ushers in the advent of homo sapiens.
the water recedes and reveals dry land that was already there.

the written word is an odd thing. you can read a sentence with the same words in it,
and completely change the meaning by where you put stress on the words. somethings
are automatically assumed. we've assumed that the 2nd verse in genesis chapter 1, follows exactly in time, after the first verse. there's no indication of that. the only real indication we have for time passage
is when the first genealogies appear and they only cover the genealogies of one family
of human beings. where's the genealogies of other families? prior creations? the angels were created beings. where's their genealogies? not in the bible cause the bible isn't about what happened from the moment of big bang till the arrival of jesus, but rather, things that pertain specifically to humans in one family line. somewhere they might have some ancient text that explains what happened on this planet prior to homo sapiens, such as sumerian texts or plato's works or tibetan text, but so far, the only examples i have seen have been extremely sparse and not nearly as informative as the fossil record.

personally, i believe we were originally some kind of clones that had fully regenerative bodies with no expiration date, and that later mammal dna was spliced in, which gave us the ability to procreate and resulted in the end of fully regenerative bodies (text says something like, block the way to the tree of life, which i think means, don't let the section of dna replicate which is responsible for full regeneration, etc. prior to that, new humans were cloned from the elohim. that would make us intelligently designed AND intelligently nerfed.

the only real question for me would be, does that mean homo erectus and older varieties were also man? they'd have to be, unless they were reptiles. if they can prove erectus was mammalian, i think erectus would count as adam. Australopithecus though, not so sure about that one. doesn't look like a man of any variety, to be honest.

by the way, adam is a plural word.

reply to post by undo


Excuse me but...what?

We have a very good amount of scientific and Genetic data...nevermind the fossil records...of the Evolution of Man. Right now a woman is going to be impregnated with a Neanderthal Embryo that was created in a lab. We can genetically trace our ancient ancestors from a single drop of a persons blood and know with 100% certainty if their ancient Cro Magnon ancestors bred with Neanderthals or not.

Thus given such vast amounts of data the questions asked whether the Bibles Genesis and the Adam and Eve story have any basis in fact have been answered.

As far as the creation of our Universe which is FINITE as we can see to it's very edge some 13.4 Billion Light Years distant were lies the WMAP and a wall of Microwave Radiation that closes to within 379,000 Light Years of the Big Bang...and we CAN SEE THIS with the aid of the Hubble Telescope...the age of our Universe...perhaps just ONE of an Infinite number within it's own Multiversal Group...which is just one group among an Infinite number of groups...this question has also been reasonably ANSWERED.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


you should re-read my post, very carefully. i'm assuming the created adam was as far back as erectus, but not as far back as australopithecus. i'm also assuming the modifications via intelligent design were already done at that point and that any variations between homo sapiens and homo erectus, are the result of series of micro evolutionary changes. as far as the creation of the universe, i didn't mention what i thought about how the universe was created, other than to mention the phrase "creation of the universe."

see, i don't think the word elohim (gods) always means what we assume it means. for example, in the original hebrew, elohim was also used to refer to angels, other gods, and
even the dearly departed. its also applied, generically, to the creation process in this example, in much the same way as items of value have been, in times passed, deified.
based on my studies, i think the universe was created (well this universe anyway) by super massive black holes, and that the word elohim was associated with this creative force because it was a creative force just as elohim is a creative force. if you understand my thought process.

reply to post by Monger



Our skulls have progressively shrunken. Neanderthal skulls were much larger as well as their brains.

Neanderthal mouths then were much larger. The teeth in neanderthal were shovel shaped and inverted slightly in the front. The inverted teeth that are shovel shaped can still be found in the Americas where neanderthal DNA is in greater supply than in the rest of the world. Its kind of curious that the supposed home continent of neanderthal (Europe) has less Neanderthal DNA than the supposed isolated continents of N and S America.

Our teeth though, were not shrunken or reduced in number, but the volume in the mouths were. We still make as many teeth as our predecessors and of the same size for the most part. That implies that we did in fact come from them, or at the very least had a hybridization process that actually formed the mutations necessary for 100% homo-sapiens to emerge.

IMO homo-sapiens is a separate off shoot of the original neanderthal. Like cro-magnon was. Also Cro-magnon is NOT simply US....

They were so physically different to us that they were equally a separate off shoot of neanderthal. Even their brains had to be different since they too had larger brains than us, and so different structures with equally different personalities and tendencies. We like to think of cro-magnon as being US, because we want to attribute their art and innovation to our graces.

We have a mix of all those genes, but ultimately are separate off shoots ourselves. The African continent with its almost completely Homo-sapien DNA is related but different to the European continent with its predominantly cro-magnon genetic influence, and the American continents are related but different with their neanderthal DNA. In Asia we had other groups we still dont fully understand and simply attribute a mixing of what we do know. It was a place of migration is all we say....We dont think any one group of hominid was indigenous to Asia alone.

It should be noted that the "new" species of hominids that we are learning of are coming from progressively eastern sites. We still have much that we dont know.

Evolution could explain small steps, but really it is more of a chart of climatic adaptation. True evolution is simply a process of genetic exchange until mutations allow a successful exchange between groups that results in a hybrid that is capable of reproduction.

Neanderthal was the real deal. HIS mutations and genetic exchange made cro-magnon, and ultimately homo-sapiens. We are a combo of the two.

reply to post by undo


Well...here's the hole in that logic. You are assigning a value to an unknown. This being assigning Adam and Eve to a specific ancestor of Man and you are doing so based upon opinion. This goes against the tenements of logical deduction as well as allowing an unknown a value. It is the same as a+b=10...then just declaring b is 4...it cannot be proven to be so.

Split Infinity

reply to post by tadaman


I think you confused a few things.

Cro Magnon looked almost IDENTICAL to Homo Sapiens as if you had to pick out a Cro Magnon out of a Police Lineup with 6 other Homo Sapiens...YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

Cro Magnon is considered a Modern Human and had a Larger Brain than we did as well as being slightly taller and more muscular on average...but not to an extent that would allow you to tell the difference between them and us.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by undo

 

Well...here's the hole in that logic. You are assigning a value to an unknown. This being assigning Adam and Eve to a specific ancestor of Man and you are doing so based upon opinion. This goes against the tenements of logical deduction as well as allowing an unknown a value. It is the same as a+b=10...then just declaring b is 4...it cannot be proven to be so.

Split Infinity

i haven't assigned any value to eve yet, in our conversation (well i did but you wouldn't recognize it so ends up being the same), only to adam, which as i said before, is a plural word. think about that. adam wasn't just one guy, adam was a whole bunch of people and adam wasn't a specific family group either. adam wasn't just males but also females and none of them were called eve yet (and that's because eve meant wife, which is to say, eve marks the point in the adam where mammalian procreation is added. far as i know, we may have all looked like ET clones before the mammalian procreation addition, as that would have a major influence on just about every body system of the adam race.

reply to post by undo


Again...hole in your logic...our Mapped Genome shows us every direct ancestor from the beginning of Life on Earth...all the way back to the first Single Celled Organism.

We KNOW conclusively what were and were NOT our ancestors.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


well, we always read that cro-magnons were slightly more muscular and robust than us. The difference is not so insignificant. It is almost as vast as neanderthal to cro-magnon. Cro-magnons were built like rhinos, and neanderthal like elephants compared to us.

The larger brain and skull with its different skull cavity means different brain structure, thus an entirely different personality and instinctual profile.


I am not saying that we are not related to them, but I think the link is due to interbreeding with them, but initially they and we were separate off shoots of neanderthal.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by undo

 

Again...hole in your logic...our Mapped Genome shows us every direct ancestor from the beginning of Life on Earth...all the way back to the first Single Celled Organism.

We KNOW conclusively what were and were NOT our ancestors.

Split Infinity

but that's only provided everyone agrees to not disagree with sideways insertion of bacteria in the genome. there's so much data in dna, and so many potential variations, that it's likely that bacterial dna could be used to prove the existence of species it may not have had any impact on,depending on what section you use. in other words, it's a good guess, but is, in the end, still a guess. at least, in the case of ancient texts, they claim to have been first hand accounts passed down by those who were present at the time (with the exception of the creation of the universe). i know science is more reliable than personal testimony, but also not infallible. this why i read all ancient texts, not just one, and also consider science, not just ancient texts. putting all your eggs in one basket, is not good science.

reply to post by tadaman


Man...your KILLING ME...LOL!

Neanderthal was shorter and stockier than us as it was around during a vast Ice Age thus it had a barrel type chest and short arms and legs because this allowed less chance of long extremities getting FROZEN.

Neanderthals were probably about as heavy as us since they were shorter by far although very thick and solid in the body area. They were NOT Giant like Elephants.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Monger

To literally answer your question. I believe the following is a better example:

scienceblogs.com...

I have noted your responses to the creationist and was laughing hysterically. Sorry but you have absolutely no chance in hell of providing any volume of proof that a creationist would understand in order for them to concede that their belief is wrong.

Over the coming years it will be interesting to see the outcome of targeted geology. This is where the geologists, evolutionists and geneticists team up to specifically hunt for a fossil with KNOWN features. This is where the merging of sciences becomes neat. The evolutionists can point to an early feature and a modern feature and make a guesstimate to the intermediate state, the so called "missing link". The geneticists can apply their knowledge of DNA and mutation rates to state at what point in time the "missing link" would have featured in animals (or plants ). The geologist can now be asked to hunt for those transitional fossils in a specific age of rock.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Creationists. I know they will come up with some contrived explanation. How extreme it will be is the funny part.

I also find the utter lack of appreciation of time mindnumbing Let's make up a contrived example : Let us assume a T.Rex evolved into a sparrow! Let us be generous to the creationists and assume that lineage breeds every 30 years !!!! T.rex lived 66 million years ago and was 12.1metres The sparrow is 50mm long. In 66million years you would have 2.2million generations each one shrinking. To shrink from 12.1m to 50mm in 2.2million generations requires a contrived change per generation of 5thousandths of a millimetre. Or to put it into human hair comparisons one TENTH of the thickness of a human hair per generation is the change required for evolution to shrink from a T.Rex to a sparrow.

Creationsists have absolutely no appreciation of the combination of small changes over huge time periods. Throw in the fact that some changes can be distinctive within one generation, so called spurts and believed to be the major mechanism for change, and you will give them kittens......the creationst would have evolved into a cat in one thread ;-)

reply to post by undo


The GREAT thing about science is that something will remain either a Hypothisis or Theory until it has been PROVEN to be a reality.

Evolution has been PROVEN to be a Reality. Science would not allow this to be unless the proof existed.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


yes, that describes climatic change. NOT genetic mutations.

You know that people´s that moved into Tibet or the Andes mountains adapted to be shorter and stockier? we should take notice of their lung capacity adapted for the thinner air.

The fastest evolutionary change we have ever documented is the lung capacity of the Andes people´s that gained larger lungs in less than a couple generations so as to breath the thinner air....

In Tibet, the people had a more gradual change since the air density varied as they settled progressively higher altitudes. If they began moving to lower altitudes those changes would revert in less than a thousand years.

The reason why physical characteristics should not be used to determine a group from another is that any group can adapt to the climate in the same exact way. Neanderthal was probably not always short and stocky for the cold as it is that extreme cold was not always the norm for the climate.

The evolutionary scale is actually a scale of climatic adaptation. We just want to think it as an anchor to our supremacy in the progression of evolution.

The larger brain and skull of neanderthal probably would have made them once much taller. The body to cranial capacity ratio we see in all the great apes as well as in ourselves us suggests that.

The new evidence points to the fact that they were MUCH more advanced than academia accepted when you studied this means that they were not brutes the way we thought. The evidence being taught to the new generations who will have the benefit of its significance mold their perception of Neanderthal and will contribute to the eventual equal stage of evolution for them as ourselves. You will see.....Music, religion, ceremony, symbolism, small scale agriculture, fishing, complex speech...... advanced thought from an advanced culture in all its forms. These things will show them to be as "evolved" as us, if not more in certain respects.

It may be difficult to appreciate the significance of the new discoveries in light of the preconceptions we have had drilled into us over the years. BUT I will suggest a refresher on the available material. You will be pleasantly surprised.

EDIT:
Did you know that the occipital bun in neanderthal probably allowed him to see much better at night. That is how he hunted the same prey as other groups but did so at night and so shared it without direct interaction in Asia even though certain populations overlapped in territory. Natural night vision. That sounds better than what we have now....Seems to be more advanced than us in that regard....

reply to post by tadaman


Your confusing a few things again...it is Cro Magnon that had the larger Brain than we did not Neanderthal.

Neanderthal did not even have properly developed Vocal Cords and most likely used a combinational form of communication of both vocalisations and sighn language.

Neanderthal WAS NOT one of the brightest bulbs in the bunch but the reason those people in the high mountains evolved to have shorter limbs is because of the Colder Temps. as well as Low Air Pressure.

Neanderthal also dealt with Low Temps. living in an Ice Age.

Split Infinity